Gene silencing of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase hinders tumor growth through angiogenesis inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 (IDO1) has been studied in various types of tumors, but the relationship between IDO1 and tumor angiogenesis needs further delineation. We aimed to clarify the relationship between tumor angiogenesis and IDO1 expression, and to explore the possibility of IDO1-targeting molecular therapy for lung cancer. For the first time, we found that silencing the IDO1 gene using small interfering RNA (siRNA) inhibits in vitro cancer cell invasion and migration. We further demonstrated that knockdown of IDO1 decreased the formation of vasculogenic mimicry. In addition to these in vitro findings, we also demonstrated that in vivo IDO1 gene silencing using short hairpin RNA (shRNA) delayed tumor onset and inhibited tumor growth in the mouse model. Immunostaining showed that IDO1 gene silencing inhibited tumor angiogenesis. Moreover, the expression of IDO1 was associated with microvessel density (MVD) labeled by CD34 and CD146. These findings indicate that IDO1 has the potential to participate in or contribute to the formation of new capillaries, supporting the applicability of IDO1-targeting molecular therapy in lung cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".